Hutton to the Minnesota Daily: There are plans to sue ‘everyone.’

[saintpaulguy]

Kaler said that one of the reasons that they decided to play in the bowl was because they the players had read the EOAA report. Not true at all, this is also something I have heard also, that Kaler stating that at his media briefing about the players reading the EOAA report and deciding to play in the bowl was because of that report, was a total fabrication on Kaler's part.

Is there a linkable source with a player saying this is not true? Is that person authorized to speak for the group? Other than Rogers tweeting, I have not seen one, and I'm not sure that is enough to convince of this.

 

[Goldy Gopher]

Is there a linkable source with a player saying this is not true? Is that person authorized to speak for the group? Other than Rogers tweeting, I have not seen one, and I'm not sure that is enough to convince of this.

At least 6 other players retweeted that tweet as well.

 

[saintpaulguy]

Thanks for the info Goldy. I personally preferred thinking they realized how tone deaf they were being. Now they don't appear to have had an epiphany, nor did they stand resolute against injustice. I can't figure these guys out.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Any legal types want to comment on the odds of injunctive relief?

Seems pretty slim.

Happy Holidays to all Gopher Fans!

SKI U MAH!!

1% chance.

I would say zero, but nothing ever completely shocks me. This doesn't appear to be a situation that warrants injunctive relief.

 

[2nd Degree Gopher]

Any legal types want to comment on the odds of injunctive relief?

I don't think they are likely to get an injunction. I also think it's irrelevant because I don't think that the University will let them play even if they are reinstated.

 

[bizzle22]

And they will get rather large settlements.

Any undergraduate education major knows enough to not say and confirm the things Kaler said about private data to the media

I tend to be on the university's side, but I do think Kaler messed up when he made mention of sexual assault the other day. Coyle has done a good job toeing the party line of " We can't comment", but Kaler went a little too far. I thought the U was fine legally up until that point.

 

[GopherinFlorida]

1% chance.

I would say zero, but nothing ever completely shocks me. This doesn't appear to be a situation that warrants injunctive relief.

Yeah, where is the irreparable damage caused by missing the bowl game? Without showing that, they can't/won't get it.

 

[bizzle22]

You don't plead the 5th on the stand and or settle if you're 100% innocent of any wrong doing and truely a victim. She knows her words and or actions that night could come back to haunt her somehow, and thus the reason they settled. I'm sure she suffered a lot, but I'm also sure she isn't as accurate as she claims to be.

Pleading the 5th surrounded the fact that a recruit (17 years old) was involved. It had nothing to do with consent or falsifying police reports as some have implied. And lots of rape victims just want things to go away. Who would want to draw massive public attention to the fact that they were used like a blowup doll by at least 5 different guys in one night whether it was consensual or not? Few would claim everything she said is 100% accurate (ask me about last Friday night when I had a few drinks and you'll get "it was fun"), but that is no different than any other statement from a witness, accuser, or accused.

 

[bizzle22]

The report said the alleged victims account of what happened was more credible than any of the student athletes, that the EOAA board accuses the student athletes of having committed "likely" sexual assault against another U of M student, in violation of a section of the code of conduct or lied about their knowledge of the evidence, without much if any information from the other witnesses involved in the Title IX investigation. The representation of the report from the EOAA was from vastly entirely one point of view in my opinion. I disagree that this information was released to the media the way it was by the University and what the suspensions were about because the student athletes had not had a chance to have their appeal heard and due process with their legal counsel. They were not given a fair opportunity to defend themselves against this Autocratic decision. The University was best off saying the student athletes were suspended for violation of team rules and left it at that. They had no business in my opinion of not protecting the confidentiality of these students in releasing to the media what they were being suspended for infinitely. Because of the controversial nature, and confidential nature of these letters and process, the University should not have released the nature of what the suspensions were due to. They would have avoided a lot of controversy and even the team boycott of the bowl game if they had only made that decision public to the media, that the players were being suspended for a violation of team rules and left it at that. This would have protected the need for confidential nature of these types of suspension and the protection of due process to the players and the rights to the appeal hearings in front of the student code of conduct board. The commentary the U of M made by their suspension press release created all of this controversy and bad publicity for all party's. The nature of these suspensions should have never been made public to the media or the general public until after the appeals process in my opinion. Internally they could have communicated the suspensions to football staff and players not suspended with limiting it the title IX investigation and that appeals for the suspended players for violation of team rules would be heard.
The donor letter by President Kaler and the exact reasons for these Title IX driven suspensions should not have been released in a press release other than it was on reccomendation of that investigation process from the EEOA. That is as far as what the University should have announced. President Kaler and AD Coyle error-ed in an egrgious and major way in my opinion by making public the nature of the suspensions. They should have left it at a violation for team rules, and left it at that. This would have been enough.

The university did not release the nature of the suspensions. University released the names. The players lawyer released the reason.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Pleading the 5th surrounded the fact that a recruit (17 years old) was involved. It had nothing to do with consent or falsifying police reports as some have implied. And lots of rape victims just want things to go away. Who would want to draw massive public attention to the fact that they were used like a blowup doll by at least 5 different guys in one night whether it was consensual or not? Few would claim everything she said is 100% accurate (ask me about last Friday night when I had a few drinks and you'll get "it was fun"), but that is no different than any other statement from a witness, accuser, or accused.

She isn't allowed to plead the 5th regarding the recruit. You can only plead the 5th to statements to which you could be criminally liable. The age of consent in MN is 16. If she plead the 5th regarding the recruit, it was about something false she said in the police report regarding the 17 yr old.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I tend to be on the university's side, but I do think Kaler messed up when he made mention of sexual assault the other day. Coyle has done a good job toeing the party line of " We can't comment", but Kaler went a little too far. I thought the U was fine legally up until that point.

Kaler was awful. There were a ton of ways to handle it:

"We take allegations of sexual assault very seriously and it's important for us to let this investigation play out before reinstating the players."

When asked about the statement by the players:

"I am glad they acknowledged the severity of the situation. An allegation of sexual assault is very serious."

It's not hard to NOT call them rapists. When you call her a victim, you are calling them rapists. It was bad. It also seems like he hasn't been very honest.

 

[Gogogopher]

She isn't allowed to plead the 5th regarding the recruit. You can only plead the 5th to statements to which you could be criminally liable. The age of consent in MN is 16. If she plead the 5th regarding the recruit, it was about something false she said in the police report regarding the 17 yr old.

I believe you could also plead the 5th to avoid civil charges.

 

[bizzle22]

You keep eating the crap sandwiches the U admin is feeding the media. The story from the players is that after the full report was distributed they had a meeting that night and voted to end the boycott and if failed. It wasn't until early the next morning, after further discussion with Kaler and one of the 5 players who didn't have sex with the woman but was still suspended gave a speech to the players telling them to not pass up the chance and do more damage to the team just to support them playing in the bowl game...they got the commitment from Kaler on fair hearings and better communication going forward and that was the best the could get. But the players didn't change their tune after the full report because they knew it was a total work of fiction by a biased and vindictive group of liberal man haters with an agenda all their own.

You mean the meeting where Kaler basically pulled out the bylaws that they were complaining about and explained to the players that they were already going to get due process so there was no need to boycott over it? That meeting? I think Kaler goofed when he mentioned sexual assault publicly after the meeting, but when he met with them I would guess he was wondering how in the world there were 100+ U of M students there and none of them had bothered to read about the process.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Maybe HuttonIII can find out how the EOAA has the power to prevent any player from participating in the bowl game? Where does that power come from? What would ACTUALLY happen if Kahler said the University will make that decision. I know some people keep insisting that the federal government would withhold funding. Would they really? Any proof if this happening previously? Different than the Baylor situation where police charges were made. Remember the victim accepted the first form of punishment as satisfactory.

The EOAA has no authority to carry out punishment, it can only make recommendations.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

I believe you could also plead the 5th to avoid civil charges.

It's a privilege against self-incrimination. So you can plead the 5th in a civil trial, but only if the statement you are asserting your privilege over could make you criminally liable.

Because she could never be liable for sleeping with a 17 yr old, she could not assert her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination over questions regarding that incident (unless she lied about it on a police report because then the crime would be filing a false police report). It has to be tied to a crime.

 

[PMWinSTP]

that would be superb. now we just need to get the case moved and put in front of a judge in a jurisdiction like say tuscaloosa, alabama or anywhere else there aren't benches full of liberal leaning judges like i assume there likely are in minnesota.

So, dumb post and bad assumption. You really think there's a better chance for 10 black men in a court in Alabama?

 

[PMWinSTP]

No charges have been filed by the University, nor could they file charges.
The players are suspended during Christmas break until they can meet at the next level of hearing. So, there is no need for a hearing before the next semester begins.
The law does not allow for the hearings to not occur by the University committee process as the law stipulates that the hearing be done by the University for Title IX hearings. The judge will not be allowed to create space for something the law does not permit.

I don't think Hutton is going to get very far.

Before defamation can be successfully proved in court, there has to be defamation. Neither Kaler or Coyle have said anything that defamed any of the athletes in any way, at any time. Names were never provided or mentioned that included specified charges. And, the EEOA report does not use anybody's names. So, how did reputations become harmed. That was not done by executives at the U. It was done by the defendants and their families.

Wow, really? What rock do you live under? It's called posturing and public pressure. It works. All the time.

 

[bizzle22]

She isn't allowed to plead the 5th regarding the recruit. You can only plead the 5th to statements to which you could be criminally liable. The age of consent in MN is 16. If she plead the 5th regarding the recruit, it was about something false she said in the police report regarding the 17 yr old.

Well, she did...

http://www.startribune.com/underage...olved-in-alleged-sexual-misconduct/407140326/

"Asked about the recruit during the woman’s testimony, her attorney, Amy Isenor, instructed her client to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege, the constitutional right to decline to answer potentially incriminating questions.

Judge Mel Dickstein initially allowed questions, but following continued objections by Isenor he retreated to his chambers to review the law. When he returned, Dickstein told Hutton he “understands that Mr. Hutton is trying to demonstrate that 609.344 has been violated.”

That law makes it a crime if “the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant.”

“I don’t know how that’s relevant to the inquiry,” the judge told Hutton.

Dickstein told him he would allow testimony on whether the recruit was present, but not whether there was any sexual contact."

 

[PMWinSTP]

That's the key. We don't really know the evidence from the players' side. Maybe she texted them afterwards. I don't know, it'd be pure speculation, so I'll stop before people say that I am slinging mud on the girl.

I think he threw the point about suing the accuser to rattle some cages.

 

[PMWinSTP]

1% chance.

I would say zero, but nothing ever completely shocks me. This doesn't appear to be a situation that warrants injunctive relief.

Also a potential set up piece, so to speak, for different action down the road.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Kaler was awful. There were a ton of ways to handle it:

"We take allegations of sexual assault very seriously and it's important for us to let this investigation play out before reinstating the players."

When asked about the statement by the players:

"I am glad they acknowledged the severity of the situation. An allegation of sexual assault is very serious."

It's not hard to NOT call them rapists. When you call her a victim, you are calling them rapists. It was bad. It also seems like he hasn't been very honest.

It's amazing how flat-footed Kaler's been. Sorry, very underwhelming leadership with a tinge of condescension, which will be a big part of his undoing, IMHO.

 

[Class_of_99]

This doesn't appear to be a situation that warrants injunctive relief.

Not giving relief will actually boost the players odds in a civil lawsuit against the U given they will more easily be able to show damages. First, it removes their ability to showcase their talents as well as there will be continuing commentary during the broadcast (national TV) furthering the image of them as rapists which helps the defamation claim.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

Well, she did...

http://www.startribune.com/underage...olved-in-alleged-sexual-misconduct/407140326/

"Asked about the recruit during the woman’s testimony, her attorney, Amy Isenor, instructed her client to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege, the constitutional right to decline to answer potentially incriminating questions.

Judge Mel Dickstein initially allowed questions, but following continued objections by Isenor he retreated to his chambers to review the law. When he returned, Dickstein told Hutton he “understands that Mr. Hutton is trying to demonstrate that 609.344 has been violated.”

That law makes it a crime if “the complainant is at least 16 but less than 18 years of age and the actor is more than 48 months older than the complainant and in a position of authority over the complainant.”

“I don’t know how that’s relevant to the inquiry,” the judge told Hutton.

Dickstein told him he would allow testimony on whether the recruit was present, but not whether there was any sexual contact."

Oh wow. I'm wrong. I am shocked that there would be a thought that she was in a position of authority over the recruit. That's a really bizarre argument to make and I'm not really sure what point is (from Hutton).

If that's a position of authority, it's wide open to just about anyone. I get why she would take the 5th. I'd be interested to read the entire testimony. It sure sounds like Hutton was going down the road of trying to pin statutory rape charges on her, which doesn't make sense to me. If she invoked the right during any questioning related to the recruit, that's a different ball game.

It's really an unwise decision for Hutton to bring up the statutory rape stuff because it allows her to take the 5th about that entire encounter. That encounter probably helps the players defense (it sounds consensual by all accounts). By trying to demonstrate that the law was violated with that, it allows her to preemptively avoid that evidence.

Weird. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Oh wow. I'm wrong. I am shocked that there would be a thought that she was in a position of authority over the recruit. That's a really bizarre argument to make and I'm not really sure what point is (from Hutton).

If that's a position of authority, it's wide open to just about anyone. I get why she would take the 5th. I'd be interested to read the entire testimony. It sure sounds like Hutton was going down the road of trying to pin statutory rape charges on her, which doesn't make sense to me. If she invoked the right during any questioning related to the recruit, that's a different ball game.

It's really an unwise decision for Hutton to bring up the statutory rape stuff because it allows her to take the 5th about that entire encounter. That encounter probably helps the players defense (it sounds consensual by all accounts). By trying to demonstrate that the law was violated with that, it allows her to preemptively avoid that evidence.

Weird. Thanks for the clarification.

For whatever reason, I believe the recess happened right after that line of questioning and that's when they got together and there was a quick settlement...as in dismissal of the ROs. Based on that, I tended to think that wherever he was going was not somewhere her attorney wanted to venture.

 

[bizzle22]

Oh wow. I'm wrong. I am shocked that there would be a thought that she was in a position of authority over the recruit. That's a really bizarre argument to make and I'm not really sure what point is (from Hutton).

If that's a position of authority, it's wide open to just about anyone. I get why she would take the 5th. I'd be interested to read the entire testimony. It sure sounds like Hutton was going down the road of trying to pin statutory rape charges on her, which doesn't make sense to me. If she invoked the right during any questioning related to the recruit, that's a different ball game.

It's really an unwise decision for Hutton to bring up the statutory rape stuff because it allows her to take the 5th about that entire encounter. That encounter probably helps the players defense (it sounds consensual by all accounts). By trying to demonstrate that the law was violated with that, it allows her to preemptively avoid that evidence.

Weird. Thanks for the clarification.

Thought it was interesting. BTW, appreciate the openness to new info. My opinion of the situation has evolved as new info comes out (sometimes it means my previous thoughts were incorrect) and I hope everyone else follows with an open mind as well.

 

[bizzle22]

For whatever reason, I believe the recess happened right after that line of questioning and that's when they got together and there was a quick settlement...as in dismissal of the ROs. Based on that, I tended to think that wherever he was going was not somewhere her attorney wanted to venture.

ROs were never dismissed. The terms were changed, but the orders were (and are, as far as I know) still in place.

 

[Class_of_99]

It's really an unwise decision for Hutton to bring up the statutory rape stuff because it allows her to take the 5th about that entire encounter. That encounter probably helps the players defense (it sounds consensual by all accounts). By trying to demonstrate that the law was violated with that, it allows her to preemptively avoid that evidence.

I think the most logical thing is that Hutton was going to claim that the girl was scared that she would be charged with sex with a minor over the incident and she learned of the age of the recruit early on. To defend against that charge, her best defense is to claim the entire encounter was not consensual. If he has a police record of her claiming that the original encounter was anything but consensual or even a proof of when she learned of the age, I think this line of attack would work very well to explain her motives in filing the rape claim which would lead back to the false police report. The judge's ruling shut down this entire line of inquiry using the minor status but I could see how her lawyer would jump on this get to a settlement rather than push their luck as the law really is not on their side for allowing her to plead the 5th on this point.

At this point - would it be a big issue if Djam claimed the content of the discussion after she returned to his apartment was in relation to the recruit and his age? Might be a very useful 'recovered memory' for him right about now.

 

[PMWinSTP]

ROs were never dismissed. The terms were changed, but the orders were (and are, as far as I know) still in place.

It was all over the news...

http://www.fox9.com/news/215150030-story
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/02/u-minnesota-football-players-restraining-orders-dropped
-five-gopher-football-players-
http://www.kare11.com/news/restraining-orders-dropped-against-5-gophers/346388303

 

[bizzle22]

It was all over the news...

http://www.fox9.com/news/215150030-story
http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/11/02/u-minnesota-football-players-restraining-orders-dropped
-five-gopher-football-players-
http://www.kare11.com/news/restraining-orders-dropped-against-5-gophers/346388303

Got me. ROs were dismissed. Guess I only remembered the part where they can't contact her and officers would monitor this, but you are correct that the restraining order was dropped.

 

[UpnorthGo4]

You mean the meeting where Kaler basically pulled out the bylaws that they were complaining about and explained to the players that they were already going to get due process so there was no need to boycott over it? That meeting? I think Kaler goofed when he mentioned sexual assault publicly after the meeting, but when he met with them I would guess he was wondering how in the world there were 100+ U of M students there and none of them had bothered to read about the process.

LMAO. If Kaler had been reading GopherHole he wouldn't have wondered why 100+ football players hadn't read the U's disciplinary process. There are dozens of GH posters who have been complaining for days about the players not being given due process who have not bothered to take 10 minutes to go on the U's website to read about it themselves. I even posted the entire investigation/hearing/appeal process in two different threads and nobody stopped their bitching about due process long enough to read either post. These are the same posters who have completely dismissed the EOAA report as hopelessly biased without actually reading it.